In this Colorado Uniform Commercial Code case, the. Colorado Supreme Court holds that under the facts of this
|
|
- Alexis Jones
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at m. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association homepage at ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE March 17, 2008 No. 07SC26, Clinton Georg and Freestyle Sports Marketing, Inc. v. Metro Fixtures Contractors, Inc. Uniform Commercial Code Negotiable Instrument Check - Constructive Possession Holder (b)(20), C.R.S. (2007) - Holder in Due Course , C.R.S. (2007) In this Colorado Uniform Commercial Code case, the Colorado Supreme Court holds that under the facts of this case, Freestyle Sports Marketing, Inc. was a holder of the negotiable instrument at issue, a check, through constructive possession. The court also holds that under sections and , C.R.S. (2007), Freestyle Sports Marketing, Inc. qualifies as a holder in due course and takes the negotiable instrument free of any claims by Metro Fixtures Contractors, Inc.
2 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Two East 14 th Avenue Denver, Colorado Case No. 07SC26 Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 05CA0889 Petitioners: CLINTON GEORG and FREESTYLE SPORTS MARKETING, INC., v. Respondent: METRO FIXTURES CONTRACTORS, INC. JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS EN BANC March 17, 2008 Quinn & Coles, P.C. D. Bruce Coles Denver, Colorado Attorneys for Petitioners Solomon Pearl Blum Heymann & Stich LLP Bruce E. Rohde Denver, Colorado Attorneys for Respondent JUSTICE HOBBS delivered the Opinion of the Court.
3 We granted certiorari in this case to address an issue of first impression in Colorado regarding whether under sections (b)(20) and , C.R.S. (2007), Colorado s codification of the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), a person can be a holder of a negotiable instrument entitled to holder in due course status under a theory of constructive possession of a negotiable instrument. 1 The court of appeals partially reversed the trial court s grant of summary judgment in favor of Freestyle Sports Marketing, Inc. ( Freestyle ), ruling that Freestyle was not a holder in due course because it was not a holder who had actual possession of the negotiable instrument at issue in this action. We hold that, under the facts of this case, Freestyle had constructive possession of the check and qualified as a holder in due course under sections and , C.R.S. (2007), of Colorado s UCC. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand with directions that the court of appeals return this case to 1 We granted certiorari on the following issue: Whether, under C.R.S (b)(20) and , a person can be a holder of a negotiable instrument entitled to holder in due course status under a theory of constructive possession of a negotiable instrument. 2
4 the district court for entry of judgment in favor of Freestyle. I. Freestyle employed Cassandra Demery as a bookkeeper for several years before it discovered that Demery had embezzled over $200,000 for personal use and had failed to pay, on Freestyle s behalf, approximately $240,000 in state and federal employment taxes. Freestyle terminated Demery s employment, demanded that she repay Freestyle, and threatened to notify the authorities if she did not. After leaving Freestyle, Demery went to work as a bookkeeper at Metro Fixtures Contractors, Inc. ( Metro ), a company owned by her parents. Demery s bookkeeping position at Metro included balancing the accounting books, invoicing customers, and paying outstanding bills on behalf of the company. In her position as bookkeeper, Demery wrote a check from Metro s bank account and made it payable to Freestyle in the amount of $189,000. Demery wrote for deposit only on the back of the check as well as Freestyle s account number, filled out a deposit form, and deposited the check in Freestyle s bank account. Demery then informed Clinton Georg, Freestyle s president, by phone, that she had obtained a loan from her family to repay Freestyle and had deposited the funds into 3
5 Freestyle s account. After Demery s phone call, Georg called his bank and confirmed the deposit of the funds into Freestyle s account. Georg subsequently used the deposited funds for payment of Freestyle s delinquent employment taxes. After two years, Metro uncovered the transaction instigated by Demery and filed suit against Georg and Freestyle claiming theft, conversion, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. Metro alleged that it had not given Demery a loan or permission to write and deposit a check in the amount of $189,000 into Freestyle s bank account. Freestyle moved for summary judgment, contending that it qualified as a holder in due course under sections and The trial court agreed that Freestyle was a holder in due course and granted the motion. Metro appealed and the court of appeals partially reversed. The court of appeals held that Freestyle could not have been a holder in due course because it was not a holder with actual possession of the check. Freestyle then appealed to us arguing that it had constructive possession of the instrument when the check was deposited at its bank. 4
6 II. We hold, under the facts of this case, that Freestyle had constructive possession of the check and qualified as a holder in due course under sections and of Colorado s UCC. A. Standard of Review Under C.R.C.P. 56(c), summary judgment may be granted if there is no genuine contested issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Inc. v. Colo. Water Conservation Bd., 901 P.2d 1251, 1256 (Colo. 1995). With regard to whether Freestyle was a holder in due course by constructive possession of the check, the trial court found that no contested material facts were in dispute and that Freestyle was a holder in due course under the applicable provisions of Colorado s UCC. The court of appeals accepted the trial court s finding that no contested issue of material fact existed. However, the court of appeals partially set aside the trial court s judgment in favor of Freestyle, reasoning that Freestyle lacked actual possession of the check and therefore did not qualify as a holder in due course. 5
7 If Freestyle is a holder in due course under section , it takes free of Metro s claims. Flatiron Linen, Inc. v. First Am. State Bank, 23 P.3d 1209, 1212 (Colo. 2001) (discussing the availability of defenses to the payment of negotiable instruments under the UCC and the different defenses for a holder in due course and a holder not in due course); La Junta State Bank v. Travis, 727 P.2d 48, 51 (Colo. 1986) (noting that a holder in due course takes the instrument free from all claims to it). Thus, whether Freestyle qualifies for holder in due course status under sections (b)(20) and , by constructive possession of the check, is a question of law that we review de novo. See Evans v. Romer, 854 P.2d 1270, (Colo. 1993). When a Colorado statute is patterned after a model code, as the Colorado statute is on the UCC, we may draw upon available persuasive authority in reaching our decision. See West v. Roberts, 143 P.3d 1037, 1041 (Colo. 2006) (citing Szaloczi v. John R. Behrmann Revocable Trust, 90 P.3d 835, (Colo. 2004)). B. Holder in Due Course The Colorado General Assembly adopted Colorado s UCC in Id. at Section , C.R.S. (2007), states that the purposes of Colorado s UCC are to: (1) 6
8 simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; (2) permit continued expansion of commercial transactions; and (3) make uniform the law among jurisdictions. The statute controls when it displaces preexisting principles of law and equity. See (b), C.R.S. (2007); see also Clancy Sys. Int l, Inc. v. Salazar --- P.3d ---, No. 06SC698, 2008 WL , at *2 (Colo. Feb. 19, 2008). A check is a negotiable instrument. See , C.R.S. (2007). The holder in due course doctrine is designed to encourage the transfer and usage of checks and facilitate the flow of capital. James J. White & Robert S. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code 17-1, 150 (4th ed. 1995). An entity may qualify as a holder in due course even if the instrument at issue may have passed through the hands of a thief. Id. at 17-3, ( The holder in due course is one of the few purchasers in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence who may derive a good title from a chain of title that includes a thief in its links. ). A holder in due course must meet five conditions: (1) be a holder; 2 (2) of a negotiable instrument 3 who took 2 Section (b)(20) addresses the definition of a holder: Holder means: (A) The person in possession of a negotiable 7
9 it; (3) for value; 4 (4) in good faith; 5 (5) without notice of certain problems with the instrument. 6 Id. at 17-2, instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession; (B) The person in possession of a negotiable tangible document of title if the goods are deliverable either to bearer or to the order of the person in possession; (C) The person in control of a negotiable electronic document of title. 3 Section (a), C.R.S. (2007), states that a negotiable instrument means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order Section , C.R.S. (2007), defines value as follows: (a) 5 an instrument is issued or transferred for value if: (1) the instrument is issued or transferred for a promise of performance, to the extent the promise has been performed; (2) the transferee acquires a security interest or other lien in the instrument other than a lien obtained by judicial proceedings; (3) the instrument is issued or transferred as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent claim against any person, whether or not the claim is due; (4) the instrument is issued or transferred in exchange for a negotiable instrument; or (5) the instrument is issued or transferred in exchange for the incurring of an irrevocable obligation to a third party by the person taking the instrument. Good faith is defined as honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards in fair dealing. See (b)(19). 6 A person takes without notice if, under section (2), he or she took the instrument: (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is 8
10 To be a holder one must meet the two conditions in section (b)(20): (1) he or she must have possession (2) of an instrument drawn, issued, or indorsed to him or her. Id. at 17-3, 152. Possession is an element designed to prevent two or more claimants from qualifying as holders who could take free of the other party s claim of ownership. 6 William D. Hawkland & Lary Lawrence, Uniform Commercial Code Series, 3-301:3 (1999). With rare exceptions, those claiming to be holders have physical ownership of the instrument in question. White & Summers, supra, at 17-3, 152. An otherwise authorized signature on a negotiable instrument is not converted into an unauthorized forgery when an agent, authorized to sign negotiable instruments in his principal s name, abuses that authority by negotiating the instrument to a holder in due course for the agent s own personal benefit. Willey v. Mayer, 876 P.2d 1260, 1265 (Colo. 1994) (holding that when an agent has actual authority to sign a negotiable instrument but acts with an an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument... (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or a claim in recoupment.... 9
11 improper purpose or without authorization in transferring an instrument to a third party, the principal is liable on the instrument to a holder in due course); see also , C.R.S. (2007); Grease Monkey Int l, Inc. v. Montoya, 904 P.2d 468, 474 (Colo. 1995). C. Constructive Possession Section (a), C.R.S. (2007), states that a collecting bank is an agent or sub-agent of the owner of the item. Further, the statute states, This provision applies regardless of the form of indorsement or lack of indorsement.... Id. A check payable to a party and deposited in that party s account makes the party the owner of the check under the UCC. See Mercantile Bank & Trust Co. v. Hunter, 501 P.2d 486, 487 (Colo. App. 1972). Further, the White & Summers treatise on the UCC speaks to a collecting bank as an agent for the owner s possession: Sometimes the one claiming to be a holder in due course will not have possession of the instrument at the time of the suit. When a collecting bank holds the check, the solution is simple, for section makes that bank the agent of the owner of the check. Under traditional analysis, the agent s possession would be the owner s possession and thus the owner would have possession. 17-3, 153 (emphasis added). 10
12 Thus, there are circumstances wherein requiring actual physical possession of the instrument would be problematic and constructive possession applies. Hawkland & Lawrence, supra, at 3-301:3. 7 Nevertheless, a determination of constructive possession should occur only when delivery is clearly for an identifiable person under circumstances excluding any other party as a holder in due course. Id. Other jurisdictions have recognized constructive possession as qualifying under the UCC for holder in due course purposes. In Depew Development Inc. v. AT & A Trucking Corp., 621 N.Y.S. 2d 242, 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994), a case remarkably similar to the one before us, the court found a defendant to be a holder in due course when an accountant deposited a check directly into the defendant s bank account rather than first delivering it to the defendant. In Scheid v. Shields, 524 P.2d 1209, 1211 (Or. 1974), the Oregon Supreme Court said that a plaintiff could maintain an action even though he was not in actual possession of the instrument, thereby narrowing its prior decision in Investment Services Co. v. Martin Bros. Container & Timber Products Corp., 465 P.2d 868 (Or. 1970). 7 The UCC treatise provides an example of a scenario where the purchaser has the right to obtain immediate possession of an instrument left with a third party. Hawkland & Lawrence, supra, at 3-301:3. 11
13 Many states have not had the opportunity to address the issue of constructive possession under the UCC. However, decisions in six other jurisdictions, in addition to New York and Oregon, have recognized the sufficiency of constructive possession in relation to being a holder in due course. See Mid-first Bank, SSB v. C.W. Haynes & Co., Inc., 893 F. Supp. 1304, (D.S.C. 1994); Bankers Trust v. 236 Beltway Inv., 865 F. Supp. 1186, 1195 (E.D. Va. 1994); Schranz v. I.L. Grossman, Inc., 412 N.E. 2d 1378, 1386 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980); Lazidis v. Goidl, 564 S.W. 2d 453, 455 (Tx. Civ. App. 1978); Billingsley v. Kelly, 274 A.2d 113, (Md. 1971); Snyder v. Town Hill Motors, Inc., 165 A.2d 293, 295 (Pa. Super. 1960). In Billingsley, Maryland s Court of Appeals aptly held that, when recognizing constructive possession in relation to whether a negotiable instrument was delivered, the prudent use of the constructive delivery doctrine has not worked a great hardship upon the conduct of commercial transactions. 274 A.2d at 118. D. Application to this Case In the case before us, Demery was Metro s agent, specifically its employee. As a bookkeeper for Metro, Demery s authority included the power to write checks on 12
14 Metro s behalf. Despite the fact that Metro did not specifically authorize Demery to write a check to Freestyle, Metro placed her in a position to do so. Subsequently, Demery informed Freestyle that she had obtained authority from Metro s owners, her parents, to issue the check and had directly deposited the funds into Freestyle s account. Freestyle verified with its bank the deposit of these funds into its account and then, relying on the availability of those funds, paid the delinquent taxes to the state and federal authorities. The court of appeals held that Freestyle could not be a holder in due course because it lacked possession of the check. However, this is too narrow a reading of section , which includes circumstances where the instrument does not bear apparent evidence of forgery and the person to whom the instrument is drawn took the instrument for value, in good faith, and without notice that it contained an unauthorized signature. Section states: (a) Subject to subsection (c) of this section and section (d) holder in due course means the holder of an instrument if: (1) The instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and (2) The holder took the instrument (i) for value, (ii) in good faith, (iii) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or 13
15 that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, (iv) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, (v) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in section , and (vi) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in section (a). (Emphasis added). The trial court found that Freestyle was a holder in due course based on the undisputed facts of this case. 8 Demery delivered the check by depositing it into Freestyle s bank account. Section (b)(14), C.R.S. (2007) defines delivery with respect to an instrument as a voluntary transfer of possession. Two elements are required for delivery of an instrument: (1) intent of the transferor to transfer possession of an instrument, and (2) the actual transfer of the instrument. Hawkland & Lawrence, supra, at 3-105:2 (observing that courts have found the instrument was delivered even before it reached the transferee s possession by utilizing concepts of constructive possession and constructive delivery). However, Metro counters that the bank was not Freestyle s agent with respect to the collection of a 8 The trial court specifically stated, The Court adopts by reference [Freestyle s] recitation of holder in due course and its applications of the facts of this case
16 stolen instrument because under the UCC, a collecting bank is only the agent for an owner of an instrument and, according to Metro, Freestyle did not own the check. But Metro s argument is contrary to prior Colorado law defining the term owner in relation to negotiable instruments such as checks. An otherwise authorized signature on a negotiable instrument is not converted into an unauthorized forgery when an agent, authorized to sign negotiable instruments in his principal s name, abuses that authority by negotiating the instrument to a holder in due course for the agent s own personal benefit. Willey, 876 P.2d at A check payable to a party and deposited in that party s account makes it the owner of the check under the UCC. See Mercantile Bank & Trust Co., 501 P.2d at 487. While Metro claims Freestyle was not a holder, it does not simultaneously argue that it was a competing holder. There is no other possible holder under the facts of this case. Metro s agent made out the check to Freestyle, wrote the deposit receipt to Freestyle, and delivered the check by depositing it into Freestyle s bank account. Thus, Freestyle had constructive possession of this instrument and qualifies as a holder under section (b)(20). Freestyle was not only a holder under the facts of this case, it was a holder in due course. A note 15
17 containing an unconditional promise to pay a fixed sum on a definite date is a negotiable instrument. Haberl v. Bigelow, 855 P.2d 1368, 1372 (Colo. 1993). Here, the check was made out to Freestyle with the unconditional promise to pay the fixed sum of $189,000 on January 4, Freestyle argues that under section (a)(3), the instrument was issued as payment for Demery s outstanding debt to Freestyle. Metro does not contest that Demery embezzled funds from Freestyle and therefore owed Freestyle funds; rather, it asserts that it did not authorize Demery to issue the check. A pre-existing debt is sufficient consideration. Premier Farm Credit, PCA v. W-Cattle, LLC, 155 P.3d 504, 520 (Colo. App. 2006). Thus, Freestyle took the check for value. Freestyle acted in good faith. Bad faith for the holder in due course standard means guilty knowledge or willful ignorance. Hendrickson v. Alpert, 159 Colo. 463, 467, 412 P.2d 433, 435 (1966). Here, Freestyle lacked guilty knowledge or willful ignorance. The record contains no facts asserted by Metro that, if proven, would support a bad faith claim. To the contrary, Demery told Freestyle that she had obtained a loan from her family, the owners of Metro, to repay the funds she owed. The trial court found 16
18 that Freestyle did not have a basis for knowing this information was false. Finally, Freestyle had no notice that Demery lacked authority to issue the check or that it was forged. The undisputed facts are that Demery was Metro s bookkeeper and had authority to issue the check. Metro simply insinuates that, because its employee stole from Freestyle, Freestyle should have been on notice that she was also stealing from Metro. However, Metro was in the best position to protect itself against Demery s action. When the instrument is regular on its face, we have held that there is no duty to inquire into possible defenses, absent circumstances that reveal a deliberate desire to evade knowledge: [W]here an instrument is regular on its face, there is no duty to inquire as to possible defenses unless the circumstances of which the holder has knowledge are of such a nature that failure to inquire reveals a deliberate desire to evade knowledge because of a fear that investigation will disclose the existence of a defense. Money Mart Check Cashing Ctr., Inc. v. Epicycle Corp., 667 P.2d 1372, 1374 (Colo. 1983). Metro s owner, Demery s father, testified that he had no reason to believe Freestyle knew that the check had been forged. Demery also testified that she had no reason to believe Freestyle knew that the check was forged. 17
19 Application of Colorado s UCC can result in loss to an innocent party in favor of a holder in due course. West, 143 P.3d at However, an important policy objective of the statute is to protect the party least able to protect himself or herself. Id. [W]here one of two innocent parties must suffer because of the wrongdoing of a third person, the loss must fall on the party who has by his conduct created the circumstances which enabled the third party to perpetuate the wrong. Id. at Reasons to place the risk on the principal of an agent in commercial transactions include: (1) the increased incentive for a principal to exercise care in selecting agents; (2) the fact that the principal is in a better position to supervise the actions of the agent; and (3) the fact that the principal bears the fruit of a principal/agent relationship. Willey, 876 P.2d at Applied to this case, Demery acted as a bookkeeper for Metro for several years. Metro was in the best position to have instituted internal procedures and mechanisms regarding the company s accounting. Attesting to its lack of internal procedure, Metro did not uncover the embezzlement until two years after Demery deposited the check into Freestyle s bank account. Freestyle was 18
20 not in a position, as a third party, to dictate Metro s internal control procedures to prevent employee theft. Colorado s UCC intends to promote reliability on issued instruments, not to undermine their efficacy by placing the burden on the person to whom it is issued to determine a check s validity. Metro s recourse is not against Freestyle, but rather against its agent employee for breaching her fiduciary duty to the company. See Holter v. Moore and Co., 681 P.2d 962, 966 (Colo. App. 1983). Having reviewed the holder in due course elements in light of the undisputed facts of the case, we determine that Freestyle was a holder with constructive possession of a negotiable instrument, which was given for value and taken in good faith without notice of a forgery or an unauthorized signature. III. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand with directions that the court of appeals return this case to the district court for entry of judgment in favor of Freestyle. 19
IC Short title Sec IC may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code ) Negotiable Instruments.
IC 26-1-3.1 Chapter 3.1. Negotiable Instruments IC 26-1-3.1-101 Short title Sec. 101. IC 26-1-3.1 may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code ) Negotiable Instruments. IC 26-1-3.1-102 Subject matter Sec. 102.
More informationNEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS 1
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS 1 I. TERMINOLOGY A. Note is a promise to pay. Involves two parties. B. Draft is an order to pay. Involves three parties. C. A promissory note is a note. D. A check is a draft. E.
More informationArticle 3. Negotiable Instruments. PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS Definitions.
Article 3. Negotiable Instruments. (Revised) PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS. 25-3-101. Short title. This Article may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code Negotiable Instruments. (1899, c. 733,
More information2012 CO 23. The supreme court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and holds that
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ROBERT J. TRIFFIN, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, LICCARDI FORD, INC., d/b/a THE CAR
More informationNegotiable Instruments--A Cause of Action on a Cashier's Check Accrues from the Date of Issuance
4 N.M. L. Rev. 253 (Summer 1974) Summer 1974 Negotiable Instruments--A Cause of Action on a Cashier's Check Accrues from the Date of Issuance James Jason May Recommended Citation James J. May, Negotiable
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit February 1, 2012 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT In re: MARK STANLEY MILLER, also known as A
More information2018 CO 58. No. 17SC55, Roberts v. Bruce Attorney s Fees Statutory Interpretation.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationIC Chapter 5.1. Letters of Credit
IC 26-1-5.1 Chapter 5.1. Letters of Credit IC 26-1-5.1-101 Short title; scope Sec. 101. (a) IC 26-1-5.1 shall be known and may be cited as Uniform Commercial Code ) Letters of Credit. (b) IC 26-1-5.1 applies
More information3. Negotiable Instruments Negotiable Instruments
3. Negotiable Instruments 3.1. Negotiable Instruments All negotiable Instruments are governed by the provisions of our Bills of Exchange Ordinance of 1927. This Ordinance is a verbatim reproduction of
More informationBills of Exchange Act 1909
Bills of Exchange Act 1909 Act No. 27 of 1909 as amended This compilation was prepared on 27 December 2011 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 46 of 2011 The text of any of those amendments not
More informationSenate Bill No. 198 Senators Care and Amodei. Joint Sponsor: Assemblywoman Ohrenschall CHAPTER...
Senate Bill No. 198 Senators Care and Amodei Joint Sponsor: Assemblywoman Ohrenschall CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to the Uniform Commercial Code; revising the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform
More informationCHAPTER 46:02 BILLS OF EXCHANGE ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
SECTION 1. Short title 2. Interpretation CHAPTER 46:02 BILLS OF EXCHANGE ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Preliminary PART II Bills of Exchange Form and Interpretation 3. Bill of exchange defined 4. Effect
More information2018 CO 81. No. 16S721, Ybarra v. Greenberg & Sada, P.C. Finance, Banking, and Credit Insurance Statutory Interpretation Torts.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More information2018 CO 46. No. 17SC346, Mason v. Farm Credit S. Colo., ACA C.R.C.P. 38 Right to a Jury Trial Legal or Equitable Basic Thrust Test.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee, Plaintiff-Respondent, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 36
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 36 Court of Appeals No. 10CA0789 El Paso County District Court No. 09CR1622 Honorable David S. Prince, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationThis matter comes before the Court on a motion for partial summary judgment and preliminary injunction and cross motion for partial summary judgment.
DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Court Address: 1437 Bannock St. Denver, CO 80202 OASIS LEGAL FINANCE GROUP, LLC, OASIS LEGAL FINANCE, LLC, OASIS LEGAL FINANCING OPERATING COMPANY, LLC,
More information10SA304, People v. Schutter: Fourth Amendment Warrantless Search Contents of iphone Lost or Mislaid Property.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationChapter 250. Bills of Exchange Act Certified on: / /20.
Chapter 250. Bills of Exchange Act 1951. Certified on: / /20. INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Chapter 250. Bills of Exchange Act 1951. PART I PRELIMINARY. 1. Interpretation. acceptance accommodation
More informationShirley S. Joondeph; Brian C. Joondeph; and CitiMortgage, Inc., JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 07CA0995 Arapahoe County District Court No. 06CV1743 Honorable Valeria N. Spencer, Judge Donald P. Hicks, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Shirley
More informationArgued November 27, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Sabatino, Ostrer and Whipple.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BZA 301 HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 10, 2015 v No. 323359 Oakland Circuit Court LOUIS STEVENS, LC No. 2013-134650-CK Defendant-Appellant. Before:
More informationTHE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Jacquelin S. Bennett, Genevieve S. Felder, and Kathleen S. Turner, individually, as Co-Trustees and Beneficiaries of the Marital Trust and the Qualified
More information1ds CHAPTER: 28 /2.11',3-/ 0 / .. LEGISLATIVE DSTORY CHECKLIST' -, Compil~d by the NJ state Law Library. ..12A: et.seq. NJSA:.
" ' /2.11',3-/ 0 / NJSA:. 'LAWS OF: B.ILL NO: SPOHSOR(S): DATE INTRODUCED: COMMITTEE:.. LEGISLATIVE DSTORY CHECKLIST' -, Compil~d by the NJ state Law Library..12A:3-10.1.et.seq. 1ds CHAPTER: 28 S344 Gormley
More informationMARCH 13, Referred to Committee on Judiciary. SUMMARY Makes various changes to provisions pertaining to Uniform Commercial Code.
S.B. SENATE BILL NO. SENATOR CARE MARCH, 00 Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY Makes various changes to provisions pertaining to Uniform Commercial Code. (BDR -0) FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government:
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS NO. 98-PR-1405 TOPEL BLUEPRINTING CORPORATION, APPELLANT, SHIRLEY M. BRYANT, APPELLEE.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationAMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE ARTICLES 3, 4 AND 4A
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION ONLY AMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE ARTICLES 3, 4 AND 4A NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS FEBRUARY 2001 COPYRIGHT 2001 by THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE
More information2017 CO 105. No. 16SC731, People in Interest of J.W. Children s Code Dependency or Neglect Proceedings Jurisdiction.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationRelationship of Issuer to Owner and Transferee The subject of this chapter is the relationship between the issuer of a security and the rest of the
Chapter Two Relationship of Issuer to Owner and Transferee The subject of this chapter is the relationship between the issuer of a security and the rest of the world. This relationship is far simpler than
More informationTITLE 5: UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE DIVISION 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
1201. General Definitions. Subject to additional definitions contained in the subsequent divisions of this title which are applicable to specific divisions or chapters thereof, and unless the context otherwise
More information09SC697, Citizens for Responsible Growth v. RCI Development Partners, Inc.: Land Use Applications - Rule 106(a)(4) Time For Review - Final Decision
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationBELIZE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT CHAPTER 245 REVISED EDITION 2011 SHOWING THE SUBSTANTIVE LAWS AS AT 31 ST DECEMBER, 2011
BELIZE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT CHAPTER 245 REVISED EDITION 2011 SHOWING THE SUBSTANTIVE LAWS AS AT 31 ST DECEMBER, 2011 This is a revised edition of the Substantive Laws, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner
More information2018 CO 79. against attorneys by non-clients absent a showing of fraud, malicious conduct, or
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 06/08/2012 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES CRAIGIE and NANCY CRAIGIE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED June 9, 2000 v No. 213573 Oakland Circuit Court RAILWAY MOTORS, INC., LC No. 97-548607-CP and Defendant/Cross-Defendant
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT NGOC T. PHAN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-3364 ) DEUTSCHE
More informationMarion County Attorney s Office 214 E. Main Knoxville, IA (641) TO ALL BUSINESSES/PERSONS UTILIZING THE BAD CHECK PROCEDURE
Marion County Attorney s Office 214 E. Main Knoxville, IA 50138 (641) 828-2223 TO ALL BUSINESSES/PERSONS UTILIZING THE BAD CHECK PROCEDURE Attached are forms, samples, and instructions for utilizing the
More informationSenate Bill No. 72 Senators Care and Amodei
Senate Bill No. 72 Senators Care and Amodei CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to business entities; adopting the Uniform Limited Partnership Act (2001) and providing for its applicability on a voluntary basis;
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Nos ; Non-Argument Calendar
Case: 14-10826 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Nos. 14-10826; 14-11149 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cv-02197-JDW, Bkcy
More informationBullet Proof Guaranties
Bullet Proof Guaranties David M. Mannion, Esq. DMannion@BlakeleyLLP.com Blakeley LLP 54 W. 40th Street New York, NY 10018 V. (917) 472-9587 F. (949) 260-0613 www.blakeleyllp.com New York Los Angeles Orange
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND NO. 103 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1994 CITIZENS BANK OF MARYLAND MARYLAND INDUSTRIAL FINISHING CO., INC.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND NO. 103 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1994 CITIZENS BANK OF MARYLAND V. MARYLAND INDUSTRIAL FINISHING CO., INC. Murphy, C.J. Eldridge Chasanow Karwacki Bell Raker McAuliffe, John
More information2018 CO 12. No. 16SC666, Oakwood Holdings, LLC v. Mortgage Investments Enterprises, LLC Foreclosure Redemption , C.R.S. (2017) Right to Cure.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationNegotiable Instruments
SMU Law Review Manuscript 4500 Negotiable Instruments D. Carl Richards Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.smu.edu/smulr This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Dedman
More information06SC667, Colorado Department of Transportation v. Brown Group Retail, Inc.: Governmental Immunity Torts Unjust Enrichment
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcase annctsindex.htm Opinions are also posted
More information2016 CO 3. No. 12SC916, Doubleday v. People Felony Murder Affirmative Defenses Duress
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More information2018COA62. No. 16CA0192 People v. Madison Crimes Theft; Criminal Law Sentencing Restitution. Pursuant to an agreement between the defendant and the
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More information2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
--- N.Y.S.2d ---- Page 1 Surrogate's Court, Kings County, New York. In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Gertrude RAY, a/ k/a Gertrude Ray Fields and Gertrude Fields Ray Deceased. No. 2502/04. March 10, 2009.
More information2018 CO 1. No. 16SC303, Dep t of Revenue v. Rowland Evidence Revocation of License Evidence of Sobriety Tests.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, AS TRUSTEE FOR SAXON SECURITIES TRUST 2003-1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. CONNIE WILSON
More informationTitle 17 Laws of Bermuda Item 21 BERMUDA 1934 : 8 BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1934 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
BERMUDA 1934 : 8 BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT 1934 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1 Interpretation 2 Definition of bill of exchange 3 Inland and foreign bills 4 Effect where different parties to bill are the same person
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MULTI-GRINDING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 15, 2004 v No. 245779 Macomb Circuit Court RICHARDSON SALES & CONSULTING LC No. 02-000614-CK SERVICES, INC.,
More information2018 CO 19. No. 15SC469, People v. Washam Crim. P. 7(e) Time-allegation Amendments
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationNo. 48,397-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * Versus * * * * *
Judgment rendered September 25, 2013. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 48,397-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * *
More informationBELIZE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT CHAPTER 245 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000
BELIZE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT CHAPTER 245 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the authority
More informationReply Brief of Appellant Robert L. Smith, Jr.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. ROBERT L. SMITH, JR., Defendant-Appellant. Case No. 2012-239 On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District
More informationBills of Exchange Act 22 of 2003 (GG 3121) brought into force on 15 May 2004 by GN 110/2004 (GG 3207) ACT
(GG 3121) brought into force on 15 May 2004 by GN 110/2004 (GG 3207) ACT To provide for the form, interpretation, negotiation, and discharge of bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes and other documents;
More informationThe supreme court holds that section (10)(a) protects the records of a
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More information2019 CO 4. the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services (the Department) lacked standing
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More information2014 CO 49M. No. 12SC299, Cain v. People Evidence Section , C.R.S. (2013)
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationNkiambi Jean Lema v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 93 September Term 2002
Nkiambi Jean Lema v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 93 September Term 2002 [Banking: Maryland Uniform Commercial Code: Whether Bank of America was entitled to debit a customer s account for losses it incurred
More informationMonica Vickery sought review of the court of appeals. damages in her defamation suit against the mother and sister of
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationThe Statute of Limitations Under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act: New Jersey s View
The Statute of Limitations Under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act: New Jersey s View Publication: The Banking Law Journal Although New Jersey adopted its version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MARK ELSESSER A/K/A MARK JOSEPH ELSESSER Appellant No. 1300 MDA 2014
More informationJUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division II Opinion by JUDGE WEBB Casebolt and Dailey, JJ., concur. Announced June 9, 2011
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 10CA1137 Eagle County District Court No. 09CV44 Honorable Robert T. Moorhead, Judge June Marie Sifton, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Stewart
More informationAMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE ARTICLES 1, 3, AND 9
D R A F T FOR DISCUSSION ONLY AMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE ARTICLES 1,, AND NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS March -, 01 Drafting Committee Meeting Redline Comparison
More informationBills of Exchange Act 1908
Reprint as at 1 March 2017 Bills of Exchange Act 1908 Public Act 1908 No 15 Date of assent 4 August 1908 Commencement 4 August 1908 Contents Page Title 4 1 Short Title 4 2 Interpretation 5 Part 1 Bills
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA36 Court of Appeals No. 16CA0224 City and County of Denver District Court No. 14CV34778 Honorable Morris B. Hoffman, Judge Faith Leah Tancrede, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
More informationBegging the Question: Schwegmann Bank and Trust Co. of Jefferson v. Simmons and the Issue of "Notice" to Holders in Due Course
Louisiana Law Review Volume 50 Number 4 March 1990 Begging the Question: Schwegmann Bank and Trust Co. of Jefferson v. Simmons and the Issue of "Notice" to Holders in Due Course Michael R. Ross Repository
More informationOF FLORIDA. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen L. Leesfield, Judge.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM A.D., 2004 JOHN H. FARO, Appellant, vs. CORPORATE STOCK
More informationCACH, LLC v. Taylor, Del: Court of Common Pleas CACH, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DEBORAH J. TAYLOR, Defendant. No. CPUU
CACH, LLC v. Taylor, Del: Court of Common Pleas 2013 CACH, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DEBORAH J. TAYLOR, Defendant. No. CPUU4-12-003000. Court of Common Pleas Court of Delaware, New Castle County. Submitted: January
More information2018COA107. A division of the court of appeals considers whether the. district court may consider documents outside the bare allegations
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationDEFENDANT S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT
Appendix E4 Defendant s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Set Aside Default Page 1 of 9 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE Defendant Pro Se SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CHANCERY DIVISION COUNTY Plaintiff, DOCKET
More informationThe supreme court reverses the trial court s order. disqualifying the district attorney under section (2),
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm and are posted on the
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT OPINION AND ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#12) Procedural History
Dernier v. U.S. Bank National Ass n, No. 144-3-11 Wrcv (DiMauro, J., Jan. 26, 2015). [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy
More informationM5 Consulting, LLC, a Colorado corporation; Jamie Mount, a Colorado citizen; and Cattle Consultants, LLC, a Colorado corporation,
12CA0021 Huffman v M5 01 17 2013 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS CO Court of Appeals Court of Appeals No. 12CA0021 Morgan County District Court No. 10CV62 Honorable Charles M. Hobbs, Judge Huffman Livestock,
More informationDavis, Eyler, James R., Meredith,
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 399 September Term, 2005 MOUNT VERNON PROPERTIES, LLC v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY t/a BB&T Davis, Eyler, James R., Meredith, JJ. Opinion
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY. BANKERS TRUST CO. AS TRUSTEE CASE NUMBER AMRESCO RESIDENTIAL PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v.
[Cite as Bankers Trust Co. Wagner, 2002-Ohio-339.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY BANKERS TRUST CO. AS TRUSTEE CASE NUMBER 1-01-94 AMRESCO RESIDENTIAL OHIO BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT
More informationThe Resolution of Padded Payroll Cases by the Uniform Commercial Code: A Pandora's Box
Boston College Law Review Volume 9 Issue 2 Number 2 Article 4 1-1-1968 The Resolution of Padded Payroll Cases by the Uniform Commercial Code: A Pandora's Box Barry L. Weisman Follow this and additional
More informationPlaintiff, DECISION and ORDER No. 1:14-cv-341(MAT)(JMM) Accadia Site Contracting, Inc. ( Accadia or Plaintiff ),
Accadia Site Contracting, Inc. v. Northwest Savings Bank Doc. 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ACCADIA SITE CONTRACTING, INC. -vs- Plaintiff, DECISION and ORDER No. 1:14-cv-341(MAT)(JMM)
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS. BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee for SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Home Mortgage Investment Trust CHANCERY DIVISION 2004-4 Mortgage-Backed
More informationUnion Pacific petitioned for review of the court of. appeals judgment in Martin v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 186 P.3d
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationPetitioner Nancy Gallion appeals the revocation of her. driver s license for refusal to take a blood alcohol test when
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm Opinions are also posted
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 128. Henry Block and South Broadway Automotive Group, Inc., d/b/a Quality Mitsubishi, Inc., JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 128 Court of Appeals No. 12CA0906 Arapahoe County District Court No. 09CV2786 Honorable John L. Wheeler, Judge Premier Members Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More information2018COA44. No. 17CA0407, Minshall v. Johnston Civil Procedure Process Substituted Service
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More information2014 CO 10. No. 10SC747, People v. Smith Felony Probation Sentence Presentence Confinement Credit.
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-0-DMR Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 SIMI MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff(s), BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant(s). / No.
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. ROBERT R. COLE, JR., Appellant V. GWENDOLYN PARKER, INC.
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 4, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01655-CV ROBERT R. COLE, JR., Appellant V. GWENDOLYN PARKER, INC., Appellee On Appeal from
More informationORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division IV Opinion by: JUDGE WEBB Terry and Sternberg*, JJ., concur. Announced: May 1, 2008
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 07CA0647 Clear Creek County District Court No. 06CV66 Honorable Russell Granger, Judge BS & C Enterprises, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas K. Barnett,
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS. Eugene Kim, an individual, and Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., an Arizona limited liability partnership, ORDER REVERSED
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA114 Court of Appeals No. 14CA1161 City and County of Denver District Court No. 14CV30628 Honorable Michael A. Martinez, Judge Ledroit Law, a Canadian law firm, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationNo. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION, REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. Plaintiff, MIKE complains of defendants STEPHEN and
No. Filed 09 February 21 P10:11 Loren Jackson District Clerk Harris District MIKE Plaintiff VS STEPHEN, SUPPORT, LLC, SOLUTIONS, LLC, and Defendants IN THE DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS JUDICIAL
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. GS PARTNERS, L.L.C., a limited liability company of New Jersey, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 176
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 176 Court of Appeals No. 13CA0093 Gilpin County District Court No. 12CV58 Honorable Jack W. Berryhill, Judge Charles Barry, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bally Gaming, Inc.,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc JOHN F. HOGAN, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-11-0115-PR Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-CV-10-0385 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, N.A.;
More informationThe supreme court affirms the court of appeal s decision to. reverse the district court s dismissal of the charges against
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm and are posted on the
More informationNegotiable Instrument law
Negotiable Instrument law Chapter 1 GENERAL PRINCIPLES Article 1. Basis of the Law This law created to govern the creation, transferring and liquidation of Negotiable Instruments, to observe and reconcile
More informationA. SOURCES OF THE LAW
COURSE: Business Law GRADE(S): 9-12 UNIT: Basics of Law NATIONAL STANDARDS Achievement Standard: Analyze the relationship between ethics and the law and describe sources of the law, the structure of the
More informationNo. 09SC963 - Gognat v. Ellsworth: Uniform Trade Secrets Act statute of limitations definition of trade secret
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationAMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE ARTICLES 1, 3, 8, AND 9
D R A F T FOR DISCUSSION ONLY AMENDMENTS TO UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE ARTICLES 1,,, AND NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS Interim Draft March -, 01 Committee Meeting Draft Copyright
More informationOPINION. Affirm and Opinion Filed February 6,2013. In The Qrourt of ppea1 jfiftj ttrtct of 1texa9 at JaUa. No CV
Affirm and Opinion Filed February 6,2013 In The Qrourt of ppea1 jfiftj ttrtct of 1texa9 at JaUa No. 05-12-00306-CV JOHN R. CHANCE, Appellant V. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 95th Judicial
More information